Sponsors (2)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Requires Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant applicants to dedicate at least 30% of each award to five specified national priority areas and sets minimum shares for election security (3%) and border crisis response/enforcement (10%). Establishes allowable border-related activities (including cooperation with ICE, participation in 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) programs, detainer cooperation, immigration-law training, and procurement of immigration-enforcement tech), requires dedicated investment justifications and ICE coordination for border projects, and authorizes DHS to deny, withhold, or remediate awards for noncompliance. The new rules apply to UASI grants awarded for FY2027 and after and allow limited federal preemption of state or local law as needed to enforce the grant conditions.
The bill boosts funding and enforceable federal priorities for election security, urban preparedness, cybersecurity, and border response—improving certain national-security and election protections—but does so by earmarking funds and imposing conditions that reduce local flexibility, increase administrative burdens, and may harm trust and access for immigrant and resource-constrained communities.
Voters and election officials: election infrastructure receives a guaranteed minimum investment (at least 3% of each award), strengthening defenses against interference and boosting voter confidence.
Urban high-risk areas and local responders: continued and dedicated UASI/HSGP funding for terrorism/emergency preparedness, cybersecurity, soft-target protection, fusion centers, and other priority programs improves local security capabilities.
Border communities and law enforcement: border-related response and enforcement activities get a predictable funding floor (at least 10% of awards), supporting staffing, technology, and coordination with federal partners.
Local communities and first responders: earmarking HSGP/HSGP-related funds toward border enforcement and ICE cooperation reduces the dollars available for other local preparedness priorities (e.g., natural disasters, community resilience).
Immigrant communities and some jurisdictions (including Tribal governments): requiring or incentivizing cooperation with ICE and funding immigration enforcement may chill applications for grants, divert local public safety resources to federal immigration enforcement, and erode community trust.
State and local officials and voters: earmarks (including a 30% allocation to federal priority areas and specific floors) plus enforceable federal grant conditions reduce local flexibility to set priorities and could override locally preferred programs.
Introduced February 25, 2026 by Richard Lynn Scott · Last progress February 25, 2026